Full Text
Date ofdecision:16.09.2019
BIJENDER SINGH&ORS Petitioners
Through; Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. M.C.
Verma,Adv. versus, , ' , UNION OFINDIA&ORS, :, f'; ^; Respondents
Through: / Mry,Rajesh Kumar,vAdv.forUOI.
.Mr.Rajneesh Sharind,Adv.for
• LAC/L&. ■
Mr ArjunPant,Adv.fdr-DDA.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICES®JEEV NARULA SAN.IEEV NARTILA.J.(Oral): ..
1.Petitionershavefiledthe^^eiitwritpetition seekingadeclarationunder
Section 24(2)ofthe Rightto fair Compensation and Transparency inLand
Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013(hereinafter as'the
2013 Act'),to the effectl®ti%sa dhqmsMdn proceedings in respectof land at Khasra. no.49/17(4-16),49/24(4-16)and 59/3(1-00)situated in
PehladpurBanger,Delhi(hereinafteras'subjectland')acquired videAward bearing No. 6/2005-06, are deemed to have lapsed since the Award was made morethan five years prior to the commencementofthis Actand the possessionofthesubjectlandhasnotbeentakenoverbytheauthorities.
2.Thefollowing reliefs are soughtbythe petitioners:
Page1 of13
2019:DHC:7378-DB (I)Issue writ,ofDECLARATION and/or any other appropriate
Writ, Order or Direction in the like nature declaring the impugned acquisition proceedings commenced vide notification under Section 4 of Act 1894 bearing no;
F.11(19)/01/L&B/LA/20112 Dated 21.03.2003 resulting in
Award no.6/2005-06 for Village Pehladpur Banger Delhi vis-a- vis subjectland stands lapsed;
(II) Consequently issue wiit of CERTIORARI quashing theimpugned acquisition proceedings commenced vide notification imder Section 4 of Act 1894 bearing no.
F.11(19)/01/L&B/LA/20112; Dated 21.03.2003 resulting in
Award no.6/2005-06 for Village Pehladpur Banger Delhivis-a- vis subjectland
(III) Issue MANDAMUS and/qf; any other"Writ, Order or direction in the like nature:epnimariding th respondents not to interfere v/ith and/of'; petitioners in, peaceful enjoyment ofthe subjeet)land situate in village Pehladpur
Banger,Delhi; / ' > (IV)Pass an}'other or further writ order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court may deeiU' fit and proper in the facts and circumstances ofthe presentcase. ^
JUDGMENT
3. The notification under.Section 4 of thie;,Land Acquisition Act, 1894 t:/,. ^ 'i-;-';.. (hereinafter 'the LAA), /was/, issued,on> 21.03.03 vide notification F.11(19)/01/L&B/LA/2011[2] and declaration imder Section 6 of the Act was made on 19.03.2004;,vide notification N9/E.ll(15)/04/'L&B/LA/28227. Subsequently, the Award bearing' no. 6/2005-06 dated 12.07.2005 was passed in respect ofsubjectland, The land was acquired for public purpose i.e. "Rohini Residential Scheme", under Planned Development Scheme of Delhi.
4. As per the petition. Petitioners are related to one another having common ancestor and having inherited co-ownership over the subject land. It is submitted that although the Petitioners have received compensation. W.P.(C)2179/2016 Page2of13 V howeverthe physical possession thereofhas notbeen taken.Moreover,the subjectland has not been utilized forthe purpose for which the acquisition wasdone.ThePlaintiffshaveattachedthephotographsofthesubjectlandas a proofofpossession in the petition. It is further alleged that barring the Petitioners, compensation has not been paid to majority ofthe landowners whoselandarecoveredbyimpugnedacquisitionnotification.Theimpugned acquisitionproceedingsare marked byexcessivedelay.Thesubjectland was notifiedforacquisitionintheye^:2003:and since then,tilltheinstitutionof thepresentpetition,no developmentplan hasbeen made orputinto action. It IS thus the subimssion ofthe Petitioners that due tqthe aforem reasonsthe acquisitionstandslapsed underSection24(2)ofthc2013Act.
5. The Land Acquisition Collector(LAC)- Respondent No.5,in the counter affidavit,atthe outsethas denied the allegations madeinthe writpetition.It ISthestand oftheLACthatthe possession-ofthe subjectland wastakenby the Governmenton26.08.2005'and)'.!.0812005.Regarding compensation,it is averred thatRs.81,79,224.20/-has-been paid to the recorded owners,the details are reproduced hereunder: ' ! SR. NO.
RECORDED OWNER DETAILS CHEQUE NO/ DATE
1. Sh.Parmanand s/o Sh. Bhim Singh(1/2share) Rs. 40,89,612/- 577030 dated 09.11.2005
2. Smt. Sademi w/o Sh. Dayanand Rs. 10,22,403/- 577031 dated
3. Sh.Krishnan s/o Sh. Rs. 577032 dated fr.P.fCJ 2179/2016 Page3of13 Dayanand 10,22,403/- 09.11.2005
4. Sh.Rajesh s/o Sh. Dayanand Rs. 577033 dated
5. Sh. Surender s/o Sh. Dayanand Rs, 577034 dated It is further contended that the public purpose involved in the acquisition is clearly mentioned in the notification and the acquisition does not sufferfrom any infirmity or irregularity.-. V
6. Delhi Development Authority (DDA)- Respondent No.3, in its counter affidavit,has affirmed the stand'takenby Respondent No.4.Itis stated that the physical possession ofthe subject land was handed over to DDA by the LAC/ L&B Department, Government nf NCT of Delhi on 31.08.2005 and ■ '4/ >5 h the subject land was further transfeired-tp RPD-IV for Rohini Residential Scheme. A report of the Pdsses^ioh,;^ dated 31.08.05 has also been annexed.The compensa|iort'%as|)4idtoLAC,vide cheque No.074064 dated 09.08.2005 for Rs. 86,40,76-G64/-r It is also contended that the Petitioners have failed to place on record any document in support of their right and title over the subject Iffid! ^to rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners to the counter-affidavit ofthe LAC and DDA.
7. It should be noted at this stage thatinitially on the application filed bythe Petitioners for interim relief, being CM Appl.No. 9319 of 2016 in the present petition, this Court on 15.03.2016 directed the parties to maintain status quo. Thereafter,this Court dismissed the said application and vacated W.P.(C)2179/2016 Page4of13 the interim reliefgranted vide order dated 22.11.2018,whichreads asunder: "l.The Court has been shown copies ofthe order dated 18th October, 2016 and 10th March, 2015 in SLP(C) No. 16385- 16388 of 2012 titled Rahul Gupta v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. whereby the Supreme Court has made it clear thatallinterim orderspassed by this Courtin relation to theland acquisition proceedingsfor the Rohini Residential Scheme shall stand vacated. The parties were also permitted to produce the order before this Courtandaskfor vacation ofthestay order.
2. In that view ofthe matter, the interim order passed by this Court on 15th Marphi 26 16, and which has continued till date, herebystands vacated.
3. CMNo.9319/2016is dismissed.''''
8. The assertion by the Petitioners' that they continued'to remain in possession ofthe subjectland.gives rise to'a disputed question offact which cannot be examined in the cunient proceedings. Additionally, considering that the acquisition in the presdht dlsb;ltvas for the 'Rohini Residential Scheme',the possession ofthe subjectland is-deemed to be with the DDA in terms ofthe order ofthe Supreme'Courtin Rjahul Gupta vs.DDA,SLP(C) 1635-88 of 2012 vide order dated 18.10.2016. The relevant portion is reproduced hereunder: "Heard Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearingfor the applicantsandperused the interlocutory applications. In view ofthe order dated 10.03.2015, passed by this Court in SLP (C) Nos. 16385-16388 of2012, and a subsequent order dated 28.01.2016,passed in thesamespecialleavepetitions, the interim orderpassed by the High Court ofDelhi on 04.3.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 1915/2015 (Annexure A-4 in the instant interlocutory applications), is liable to be vacated, and is W.P.(C)2179/2016 Page5of13 accordingly vacated. We grant liberty to the Delhi DevelopmentAuthority to produce a copy ofthis order in all matters,pertaining to land acquisition relating to the Rohini Residential Scheme, pending before the High Court,for vacation ofsimilarinterim directions. It is made clear that in case the applicants have re-entered possession or otherwise, they shall vacate the said land and hand, over its possession forthwith to the Delhi Development Authority,failing which itshall be assumed to be in possession oftheDelhiDevelopmentAiithority,aftertheexpiryoften days from thepassingoftheinstantorder. With the aforesaid directions,JheseAnterlocut applications stand disposed of.": (emphasissupplied)
9. Reliance may also be placed onthe;decision ofthe Division Bench ofthis CourtinShriDesh RajArya & Ors vs GovernmentofNCTofDelhi& Ors, W.P.(C)11645/2017 decided on 06.02.2019. The relevant portion reads as under: "8. Consequently, thp,prayers in the present petition cannot be granted. In any evetii^fherfissertio^ Petitioners that they continued to remain in possession qfthe land in question or that they have not received compensation gives rise to disputed questions offact which cannot possibly be examined in these proceedings. Additionally, considering that that the acquisition in the present case was for the Rohini Residential Scheme, possession ofthe landin question is deemed to be with theDDA in terms ofthe decision dated18"' October2016oftheSupreme Court in the lAs in SLP(C)16385-88 of2012(Rahul Gupta v. DDA)". WP.(C)2179/2016 Page6of13
10. Similarly, the Division Bench of this Court in Sube Singh vs. Lt Governor NCT of Delhi and Ors, W.P.(C) 7973/2016 decided on 25.03.2019, held as under: "9. These directions were repeated in the remaining I.As which were disposed ofon the same date i.e. 18th October 2016. In offecttherefore,theposition is thatifanyone stillin possession oflands acquiredfor the Rohini Residential Scheme had not surrenderedpossessionthereoftotheDBA within ten daysofthe order dated 18th October 2016^ then thepossession thereofwas deemedto be with theDBA It wjoiild no longer becOpen tosuch personstocontendthq^ualptiysicafp^essioriof^elandsin question remains with them
10. Thislegalposition has been clarified by this Courtin itsorder dated 22 November 2(^18 51118/2016(Jawahar Singh V. Lt. Governor) and reiterii^d in the order dated 25th January 2019 in W.P.(C)J438/2015(Krishna Devi v. Union of India)." f, " ' -
11. At the outset learned"dpunscl^for^the-Petitioner has been queried about the delay in filing the present petition. However,no purposeful explanation has been tendered in the petition to justify the inordinate delay in coming forward to challenge the present acquisition proceedings.The Award for the subjectland was passed in 2005,whereas the present petition has been filed after morethan 10 years.Thepetitionis obviouslybarred bylaches.
12. The Supreme Court has dealt with issue ofdelay and laches in Mahavir W.P.(C)2179/2016 p -. Page 7ofIS A'
V. Union ofIndia,(2018)3SCC588,in the context ofthe 2013 Act. The said judgment is unambiguous in emphasising that claims that are barred, and where there is total inaction, are not meant to be revived by the 2013 Act. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court in the said decision read as under: "22. In our opinion, the cases in which there is deliberate action ofthe ownersfor not collecting the compensation and they do not want to ireceiye U. Section 24(2) ofthe 2013 Act does not come to their rescue asprovisions are to help those persons who are deprived of.compensation futnotfor those who deliberately hadj§t0c$im^it and litig^ddfor decades for quashing ofproceedings dy^oiding tdyreceive compensation by willful act. Thefailure tofdepositfn court underSection 31(1) in such cases would,attracts.only interest as Envisaged under Section 34 of the Act and the provisions of Section 24cannot beso invoked in such cases. Ca- lit" •J )>• !■ •• ) ■'
23. In the instant case, the.' clainii has been made not only belatedly, but neither^he 'petitioners nor their previous three generations had ever approOcf^p^^^ the authorities in writing for claiming comped^wjif0fo representation had ever been filed with any-^auihOrityj- none has been annexed and there is no averment made in the petition that any such representation haduPyer been filed. The claim appears not only stale and deaii^b^^^trein^^^l^uded This we are mentioning as additional reasons, as such claims not only suffer from delay and laches but courts are not supposed to entertain such claims. Besides such claims become doubtful, cannot be received for consideration being barred due to delay and laches.
24. The High Court has rightly observed that such claims cannot be permitted to be raised in the court, and cannot be adjudicated as they are barred. The High Court has rightly observed that such claims cannot be a subject matter of W.P.(C) 2179/2016 Page 8 of13 inquiry after the lapse of a reasonable period oftime and beneficial provisions ofSection 24 ofthe 2013 Act are not available to such incumbents. In our opinion, Section 24 cannotrevive those claimsthatare dead andstale.
25.
XXX XXX XXX
26. The provision ofSection 24 does not invalidate courts judgments/orders in which right have beenfinally lost or due to inaction is barred. Law does not permit examination of barred or totallyfraudulentclaims. Theprovisions ofthe law cannotbepermittedto be defrauded or misused.Section 24(2) ofthe 2013 Act cannot be invoked in such cases. The High Court has rightly declined(o entertain the writpetitionsfiled by the petitioners. It ifnot.conceivable how the petitioners couldfile such apektipniif^ relating to the prime locality at New HelhiJhat toofor hundreds,ofacres with the delay ofmorethan100years."
13. The aforesaid Judgment has beemeonsidered by the Supreme Court in the decision ofIndore Development Authority v. Shailendra reported at (2018)3see412,relevant^portion;;dfwhich#^^ hereunder:- '*128. In our considered opinion section 24 cannot be used to revive the dead or siM^ctitims qpd thefmatters, which have been contested up to mik j'ebttrt ''or' even in the High Court having lost the cases or where reference has been soughtfor enhancement ofthe compensation. Compensation obtained and still it is urged thatphysicalpossession has not been takenfrom them, such claims cannot be entertained under the guise of section 24(2). We have come across the cases in whichfindings have been recorded that by which of drawing a Panchnama, possession has been taken, now again under Section 24(2) it is asserted again that physical possession is still with them. Such claims cannot be entertained in view oftheprevious decisions in W.P.(C)2179/2016 Page9of13 M'hich such plea ought to have been raised and such decisions would operate as resjudicata or constructive resjudicata. As either the plea raised is negatived or such plea ought to have been raised or was notraised in theprevious round oflitigation. Section 24 ofthe Act of2013 doeshot supersede or annul the court's decision and theprovisions cannot be misused to reassert such claims once over again. Once Panchnama has been drawn and by way ofdrawing the Panchnama physicalpossession has been taken, the case cannot be reopened under the guise of section 24ofActof2013..
129. Section 24 is not iritendbd tOscome to the aid ofthose who first deliberately refuse to accept the compensation, and then indulge in ilUadvised litigation, and often ill-motivated dilatory tactics, for decades together. On the/contrary, the section is intended to help those Mho have-not been offered or paid the compensation despite it being the legal obligation'of tile acquiring body so to do;and/or who have been illegally deprived oftheir possessionforfive yedrs or more; in both the scenarios, fault/cause not being attributableto-the landowners/claimants. ■1
130. We are ofthe view, thai stale or dead claims cannot be the subject-matter ofjudicmlpfdfijhgfin^^ 24 ofthe Act of
2013. The provisionsfqffsection^ not invalidate those judgment/orders of tlie courts wheje wider rights/claims have been lost/negatived, neither do they revive those rights which have come barred, either due to inaction or otherwise by operation oflaw. Frmfiuleniiqnd stalefclqitns are not at all to be raised under the guise of section M Misuse of provisions of section 24(2) cannot be permitted. Protection by the courts in cases ofsuch blatant misuse ofthe provisions oflaw could never have been the intention behind enacting the provisions ofsection 24 (2) of the 2013 Act; and, by the decision laid down in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), and this Court never, even for a moment, intended that such cases would be received or entertained by the courts. " (emphasis supplied) W.P.(C) 2179/2016 Page 10 of13
14. This Courthasalso dealtwiththeissue ofdelayandlachesinthecaseof Moot Chand v. Union ofIndia(W.P.(C)4528/2015)dated l?'^ January 2019,whereinthe Courtwhileelaboratingthe decisionofMahavir v. Union of India, (2018) 3 SCC 588 and Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra,(2018)3SCC412,onthe aspectofdelayand laches,madethe following observations: "34. The question then arises whether only the points of difference between the:decisions in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) and Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra(supra)and all issues incidental thereto have been referredto the Constitution; In thiscontextitrequiresto be notedthfltcdthougftiseypraUqii^^ frameddnIndore Development Authority-.v. Shailendraf(supra), it issOnly on Question I, viz., on whether the depdsit in the RDjtA^ount would amount to liqflngHtendered compensation'"^for the purposes ofSection the 2013 Act, that there was a difference ofopinion view expressed in the two decisions viz.,Pune Municipal'^orqldration(supra)andIndore DevelopmentAuthority v. Shailendra(supra).
35. The other point ofdiffererice was%at arising in Yogesh Neema v. State ofMP(supra) where the correctness ofthe decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu (sppra) as^ regards e^cplusion of the period coveredbytheinten'^oTd^s^om^h'<^20cti^ation oftheperiod' offive years under SeciiBP24ff[2])'of the 2013 Act was questioned. On this point the three-Judge Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (supra) unanimously overruled the decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State ofTamil Nadu (supra). On this issue no subsequentBench oftheSupreme Courtofco-ordinatestrength appearsto have taken acontrary view.Itisdoubtfid, therefore, whether this issue would be examined by the Constitution Bench. W.P.(C)2179/2016 Page11of13
36. Relevantto theissue on hand,there was no difference of view qua Question III addressed in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (supra) Le. 'Whether section 24 of Actof2013revivesbarredandstaleclaims?"On thisquestion there was no view(much less a contrary view)expressed in PuneMunicipalCorporation(supra)orforthatmatterin any other subsequent decision ofa smaller, co-ordinate or even largerBench oftheSupreme Court. This question,therefore, wasnotthesubjectmatterofreference beforethe Constitution Bench.
37. Consequently,this Courtis ofthe view thatalthough the order passed by the Constitution Bench refers to "all the aspects" being considered^fpy^the Constitution Bench, that expression would notfn^hvief^^ the correctness of the decision oftheihfee^i^^Btench inIndoreDevelopment Authority v. Shailendra (supra) as^far as it holds by a unanimousopinion thptSection 24(2)ofthe2013Actcannot revive oldandstale claims." ^ ' ill (emphasissupplied) r
15. This Court passed similar decisions videjudgments dated 31®^ January 2019 in W.P.(C)586 of2pi6(Sushma Piirthi v. Union ofIndia), 25^*^ January 2019 in WP(C)4919 of 2014 (Pj^ishan v. Union ofIndia), 5'*^ 0 February 2019 in W.P.(C)2702/2019{Mohd. Mian v. Union ofIndia), dismissing similarpetitiohs,//se?Mngu deelaruhp^^under Section24(2)ofthe 2013 Act, on the ground of delay and laches. Challenge against these judgments have been dismissed by the Supreme Court vide SLP(C)NO. 11481/2019, SLP (C) No. 13423/2019 and SLP (C) No. 8848/2019, respectively. It also needs to be emphasized that this court has also dismissed several other petitions on the ground of delay and laches and challenge against those decisions before the Supreme Court has also been dismissed. W.P.(C)2179/2016 Page12of13
16. Following the aforementioned decisions and in light of the facts and circumstances listed out hereinbefore, the present petition is dismissed on the ground oflaches as well as merits..'"At;.:V-. fid --''f} J? Ill; a k;■ 1 imh IJ ^#'1. SANJEEV NAR- SEPTEMBER16, 2019 nk A, J HI, J VIP ■I.m'i-. ^iir ifipw W.P.(C) 2179/2016 Page 13 of13